Yeah, no. You were arguing that SW could be a success without the Skywalker connection. I showed otherwise. So, touche.
Spoilers Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Yeah, no. You were arguing that SW could be a success without the Skywalker connection. I showed otherwise. So, touche.
Why not?
Yes, it has. They didn't carry the story. It wasn't about them. And yes, Solo was about Han, but still no Skywalkers. KOTOR, Rebels, The Mandalorion. All Star Wars properties that are doing or did well that did not include Skywalkers. The upcoming Kenobi series.
Star Wars will be fine without the Skywalkers, to think otherwise is simply already asuming the worst.
I think that the Old Republic MMO had some great visual graphics and storytelling, and I have watched just cutscenes that people have put together rather than playing through every single storyline (there are eight, I think). So, for me, I watch them. Like something like this with all the trailers:
Regardless, there is plenty of interest in different facets of SW lore. I think Disney would go in many different directions and be successful.
But that's the thing. SWTOR is a choose your own adventure. Certainly, the over-arching narrative is on rails - to a degree that's more than some would like - it plays out through player interaction and choice. It isn't just that there are eight stories. Each story changes depending on character alignment. Gender also plays a role. So you're really looking at 32 different character possibilities, and that's just at character creation. Plus, that doesn't even account for sexual preference. None the less, even if you were to take two straight, light-sided female smugglers from the start all the way through to the current state in Onslaught, you could have two very different people with different journeys, experiences, agendas and mission objectives whilst being married to two different people.
Agents can remain loyal servants of the Empire. They can defect to the Republic. They can defect to the Republic and become double-agents. hey can defect to the Republic and become double-agents; return to the Empire and become double double-agents. Inquisitors and try to reshape the Sith from within. Or they can build their own army of sycophants take over the sith and then go on to usurp the throne of the Eternal Empire and pretty much conquer the galaxy. Or they can just blow that all off and run around electrocuting people because murder and mayhem await.
Now, of course, there's no way anyone could ever be expected to play through each character enough times to experience all the different possibilities, and no single 'playthrough' of a character offers any more content than just watching videos. But that's not the point. The stories are meant - and designed - in a way that facilitates that interaction, such that, it could be argued, not interacting with them yourself undermines the devs' creative and artistic intent.
None the less, the point is videogames - all videogames - are designed for players to make the characters their own. You don't watch Link solve some puzzles, hunt down the Magic Sword, defeat Ganon, and save Zelda. You play as Link. You solve the puzzles. You search (or check Nintendo Power) for the Magic Sword. You defeat Ganon and rescue Zelda.
Thus, as a narrative experience, the difference in cinema and videogames as media is more than just glib semantics. It's because of that interactive difference that gives videogames more narrative freedom. Since the story is always the players' own, they don't have to rely on nostalgia bait nearly as much.
And yet SWTOR does. It wears the Skywalker Saga like cheap perfume. Most of the in-game gear is derivate stuff from the movies. And of course, all the pay real money for pixels stuff is more or less replicas: Pay $12 for Obi-Wan's ANH robes. $8 for Anakin's hilt. $4 to make T-7 look like R2. The soundtrack consists of a handful of original tracks, a couple of tracks from both KOTOR and KOTOR II and then lots and lots of stuff from Clones and ROTS, with "Battle of the Heroes" being really common, especially during big boss fights. And there's a remix of Luke's theme that pops up all over the place. And then you have the Knight story - which is more or less the de facto "main" SWTOR story is just a collection of different yet strikingly similar wink. wink. nudge. nudge events from the films. Suffice it to say, SWTOR weaponizes Skywalker nostalgia as much as it can.
Which is really what we're talking about. The Skywalker Saga will never die because, for as long as the franchise persists, it will be mined for self-referential nostalgia to used, if not for direct story elements, at the very least marketing. The Franchise will always be attached to the Skywalkers at the hip. Always.
Vader was a huge part of the pre-launch ad campaign. "Spark of Rebellion" literally opens with a close-up of his face. The first episode of the series is about R2 and 3PO. Leia appeared in a couple of episodes. One of the biggest complaints of the first two seasons was that it had way too much fan-service. At the same time, the most celebrated scene of the whole show is the fight between Vader and Ahsoka that ends with her cracking his helmet, exposing half of his face with a fantastic effect that blended JEJ's voice with Lanter's. Not to mention the fight between Obi and Maul, where Maul deduces why Obi is on Tatooine. To say Rebels 'did well without the Skywalkers' is disingenuous at best.
Fine, so they were in there. My point is it wasn't about them and it was a popular show. Meaning, Star Wars will do just fine without the Skywalkers.
We've already gotten plenty of stories outside of the core Skywalker Saga, with things like Rebels, Resistance, The Mandalorian, and I'd argue even Solo, and the franchise still seems to be going strong. I think it's been pretty solidly established at this point that a Star Wars story does not need to be part of the Skywalker Saga to be successful.
None of that exists outside the Skywalker Saga. Everything you listed is beholden to the events of the films. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? Three of the four things you listed have a Skywalker in them. It's also worth noting that Rebels' viewership became problematic after the first season, only spiking when there was a Skywalker involved in the episode. General audiences just don't care about Star Wars outside the realm of the movies. The evidence is there and overwhelmingly so. I don't get why people are so eager to belabor the point. And even with its current place within the Star Wars zeitgeist, and despite the fact it came out of a studio that was hot and (still) holds one of the highest Metacritic scores ever, KOTOR's actual sales can only be described as "good but not great." And if someone were to show up Thursday night in a Revan outfit, most of the people standing in line would just assume they were dressed as Kylo.
As far as The Mandalorian goes, it has Baby 'Yoda.' And while it's still up in the air whether or not the little guy is actually Yoda or not, he certainly invokes the image. And is the one thing about the show everyone around the world has universally clung to. Yoda is a Skywalker.
Which is the other thing I don't get. Why does everyone assume that "Skywalker" literally just means Anakin, Luke, and Leia? And Shmi I guess. Because that's completely antithetical to the one thematic thread that ties the whole thing together. That one word we've heard George and Kathleen and all the directors repeat over and over again: "Family." But "family" doesn't mean blood-relation.
Two of the three primary characters were orphans raised by non-blood relatives. The third got his nameoff of a Crackerjack Box from and Imperial crackerjack. Obi-Wan and Anakin were "brothers." The entire Jedi Order takes people away from their homes and raises them. So on and so forth. In his speech in TLJ, Yoda basically inserts himself into the role of Grandpappy to the Skywalker kids. It's all one big family that orbits the Skywalkers.
And while there's a good chance I'm wrong (Probable really. I'm wrong all the time.) My guess is that "Rise of Skywalker" means that the films announce in one big symbolic way that "we're all one big family." Much like how Buffy ended with "every woman in the world is a Slayer."
As far as The Mandalorian goes, it has Baby 'Yoda.' And while it's still up in the air whether or not the little guy is actually Yoda or not, he certainly invokes the image. And is the one thing about the show everyone around the world has universally clung to. Yoda is a Skywalker.
Which is the other thing I don't get. Why does everyone assume that "Skywalker" literally just means Anakin, Luke, and Leia? And Shmi I guess. Because that's completely antithetical to the one thematic thread that ties the whole thing together. That one word we've heard George and Kathleen and all the directors repeat over and over again: "Family." But "family" doesn't mean blood-relation.
Two of the three primary characters were orphans raised by non-blood relatives. The third got his name
And while there's a good chance I'm wrong (Probable really. I'm wrong all the time.) My guess is that "Rise of Skywalker" means that the films announce in one big symbolic way that "we're all one big family." Much like how Buffy ended with "every woman in the world is a Slayer."
If it is done well, such as Darth Revan's story, then it has potential. General Audiences (however that is being defined here) don't care about the minutia. They want to be entertained.
That’s why I find it hard to take a lot of the complaints against modern Trek and Wars seriously. Some are valid. Many are just in the weeds of tiny little details that non-super fans wouldn’t give a crap about.
Agreed. I think that the online forum community creates a much smaller feedback loop that individuals care more about these details than is actually accurate for a broader audience.
The Skywalker Saga is the series of films centered around the Skywalker family. That is means The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, and The Rise of Skywalker. That is what is coming to an end. It doesn't mean we'll never see a Skywalker again, or that we'll never see a lightsaber again, or never see another reference to any of those films. It simply means that the overarching story will be done.
No, he's not. Not even in your Buffy comparison, as Yoda would be Giles, not a Slayer. And even then, Buffy didn't make everyone a Slayer. Xander was not a Slayer. Dawn was not a Slayer. Robin Wood, Willow, Spike, Anya, etc. You're really stretching your definition of Skywalker at this point.
Vader was a Big Bad for one season. To continue your Buffy comparison, this would be like saying BtVS was all about the Mayor. Just because Vader was featured doesn't make the series about a Skywalker.
Just because something has a Skywalker in it, does not make it part of the Skywalker Saga. I am talking about things with direct connections to the Episodes I, II, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX.
He's not Yoda, the show is set 5 years after Yoda died.
That's not what happened at the end of Buffy, it was only the potential Slayers who became full fledged Slayers, not every woman on Earth.
Wait, wut?? I haven't watched the Mandalorian yet, but is it really a question as to whether or not the baby is Yoda? I mean: Yoda died before the show takes place. Does his species reincarnate?
Within ten years, we'll have another Skywalker trilogy. Bank on it.
Ok...more SW is fine by me...
Ok...more SW is fine by me...
I'm not arguing it is a bad thing. The Skywalker's are the central element of the Star Wars universe, they won't be abandoned.
Art isn't meant to be taken so literal.
FFS
FFS
